>> ^MrFisk:

Waitresses never tip the kitchen.

My first job ever was as a busboy/dishwasher at a French restaurant. Waiters and waitresses all tipped the kitchen. Not a lot, but an extra ten, fifteen bucks a night was pretty awesome when I was 15.

For someone who has worked as a waiter and a cook this is the ultimate act of kindness and they couldn't have picked a better waitress to share this with. For her to offer to give the kitchen and the rest of the staff part of it just made me smile. Good for them, good for her. And what a way to make sure you are never forgotten even by strangers.

I realize you're being facetious, so don't take this as criticism (I completely agree with the sentiment: flair bartending doesn't really impress me as a useful thing for a bar.)

Your comment got me thinking and I find it really interesting in the different views people have regarding speed when it comes to service in bars or restaurants.

I've seen plenty of Germans send a beer back to the bar for taking less than a minute. From their point of view a beer can't be properly poured in that time. Counter to that, many North Americans would consider a few minutes wait for their drink to be bad service.

Likewise, many of my Canadian and American friends would consider a restaurant to have bad service if you have to signal the waiter to come to your table, or if things take longer than they are used to, while waiters in places like the Czech Republic, Cyprus or Greece will almost never come to your table without a signal and most people expect to spend a few hours at the restaurant.

I think it's fascinating how our environment changes our views on this and how many little problems can be caused by ignored cultural differences.>> ^Gilsun:

He's not that good a bartender... took him nearly 4 minutes to make those 3 drinks and 1 of them wasn't even the right amount!!! Needs to work on his efficiency

You get it.

The only disagreement I have is that darker skinned europeans and latinos are still a rung above black people, with some white skin privilege.>> ^legacy0100:

^I think Zimmerman's identification does have some significance in this story because it can be interpreted differently in two different contexts.
1. If Zimmerman is comes from a 'white' (cultural) background, this story may be seen not only as one man's racism but also a symbol of empowered majority's oppression of the minority in US society, which is what everyone initially thought at first and the reason why the word 'white' was repeated over and over in the media.
2. If Zimmerman comes from a 'Hispanic' (cultural) background, this story is about a racist man hating on black people, but NOT as empowered majority suppressing the minority. So the story only includes a racist asshole killing an innocent black kid. Even though Hispanics are light skinned, they do not represent empowered majority in the United States. Many cleaning ladies and construction workers you see are light skinned Ecuadorians and Mexicans, and same goes for Russians and east Europeans who often work in bars, night clubs, and restaurants as waiters/waitresses.
Both contexts does not change the fact that Zimmerman is racist, that much is concrete. But it's what he represents that adds meanings to this ugly situation. Americans recognize that there is an invisible class society we have in our society, and would love to find a story that they can point to and claim it as proof. That may have been the case for Zimmerman/Martin murder case had Zimmerman been from an empowered majority group. I think the need to have evidence to prove the existence racial class society here in America is the reason why people are deliberately classifying the word 'white' in a very vague definition.
I would love to know what Zimmerman's occupation / dayjob was before the incident. This could give us an insight to whether he was being racist out of empowered majority or as just one racist a-hole.

^I think Zimmerman's identification does have some significance in this story because it can be interpreted differently in two different contexts.

1. If Zimmerman comes from a 'white' (cultural) background, this story may be seen not only as one man's racism but also a symbol of empowered majority's oppression of the minority in US society, which is what everyone initially thought at first and the reason why the word 'white' was repeated over and over in the media.

2. If Zimmerman comes from a 'Hispanic' (cultural) background, this story is about a racist man hating on black people, but NOT as empowered majority suppressing the minority. So the story only includes a racist asshole killing an innocent black kid. Even though Hispanics are light skinned, they do not represent empowered majority in the United States. Many cleaning ladies and construction workers you see are light skinned Ecuadorians and Mexicans, and same goes for Russians and East Europeans who often work in bars, night clubs, and restaurants as waiters/waitresses.

Both contexts does not change the fact that Zimmerman is racist, that much is concrete. But it's what he represents that adds meanings to this ugly situation. Americans recognize that there is an invisible class bias we have in our society, and would love to find a story that they can point to and claim it as proof. That may have been the case for Zimmerman/Martin murder case had Zimmerman been from an empowered majority group. I think the need to have evidence to prove the existence racial class society here in America is the reason why people are deliberately classifying the word 'white' in a very vague definition.

I would love to know what Zimmerman's occupation / dayjob was before the incident. This could give us an insight to whether he was being racist as an empowered majority or as just one racist a-hole.

And your customers soon will be like "WAITER! That is not the 2011 Shitter Briond i ordered, bring me a new bottle!"

>> ^ponceleon:

I'm going to open a feces restaurant in NYC and the tagline will be "You can really taste the feces!" I'll charge $150 a plate and people will be lined up around the block because it will be exclusive and you'll have to wait five weeks for a reservation.

>> ^possom:

http://www.politifact.com/truth
-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/316/increase-the-minimum-wage-to-950-an-hour/


Politifact is almost trustworthy if you ignore their topline ratings, and just read the associated analysis.

From that link:

There are at least two House bills that would increase the minimum wage in some respect. The WAGE Act would set a base minimum wage for tipped employees such as waiters and bartenders. If enacted this bill would raise the minimum cash wage of such employees (excluding tips) over time from $2.13 to $5.50 an hour. Meanwhile, the Living American Wage Act of 2011 would tie the minimum wage level to the poverty threshold for a family of two individuals. Both bills were introduced early in the year and seem to be stalled in committee. The chances of either passing in committee, much less in a full vote in the House, are remote given the Republican majority.

Come on man, I know you're not just a troll like quantum; but this is just a ridiculous stance to take. The story isn't about how this mother did or did not coordinate going to the protest with her family but how the media is exploiting one person and her family to push their agenda... just like they always do except it's really really blatantly obvious now. Let's be honest, it's none of our business wether or not this woman left her family with their consent or not -- that's between her, her husband and her children; it's pathetic when the media turns it into this jerry spingereque b.s. story -- which they do all the time by either promoting someone to absurd standards or demoting them to subhuman levels, whatever will adequately reinforce the story they're trying to sell.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

What you are ignoring, however, is how it is implied she is having an affair with a co-OWS.
I'm not entirely sure of the timeline, but at the time of the F&F broadcast there appeared to be rumors that was the case. So it can be said that F&F didn't do the due diligence to get the truth of it before flapping thier yaps. All they knew was this chick 'left' her family to stay in an OWS tent city with a strange man.
"Subject to outbursts"? Are you ting me? She isn't trained in dealing with the media, trained to tamp down a natural response to being attacked like she was
If I wanted to go to some event 'thing' then I would bloody well make sure in advance that my wife, kids, and other close family/friends were aware of what I was up doing. I'd have had a schedule, a map, a budget, a place to stay, money, and supplies. I'd have had a solid 'I'm done' day my spouse was well aware of so she wouldn't worry. And if something came up, I'd ditch the event instantly and go home because that's where parents/spouses belong. To me the most damning thing in this whole story is that Hippie-Chick McProtest is still in NYC. A normal person who isn't an idiot doesn't stay to hang around a bunch of strangers when her family is having a situation.
Because this is how NORMAL people roll. We make sure our spouses are cool before we go anywhere. We don't do stupid things that give the wrong impressions. If someone accuses us of something fishy, the first thing we do is go back to their family to make sure things are OK. It is called common sense. When a NORMAL person gets confronted with a report that they have abandoned thier family they have the truth and facts on thier side to give them everything they need to respond with the trained aplomb of an expert. Something like...
"I deny the false reports and misrepresentations of my behavior. I have not abandoned my family. I planned this event in advance, with my spouse's approval, and I have taken all precautions to care for my family in my temporary absence. Any reports that suggests otherwise are either misinformed or false. I can provide you with the contact information for my spouse, friends, and other individuals who are well aware of my intentions and can verify my statements."
I frankly find it very strange that we have not heard one peep from the husband. Neither have we heard from neighbors, co-workers, or whatever. The only articles I've seen from people that know her say she's a flaky hippie-wannabe. And the "Waiter" sure didn't do her any favors with his stupid response. He might as well have said, "Yeah - she's 'keeping me warm' nights!"

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I frankly find it very strange that we have not heard one peep from the husband. Neither have we heard from neighbors, co-workers, or whatever. The only articles I've seen from people that know her say she's a flaky hippie-wannabe. And the "Waiter" sure didn't do her any favors with his stupid response. He might as well have said, "Yeah - she's 'keeping me warm' nights!"
The paragraphs you have dedicated to this non-story show that you are exactly the type of drone these assholes are trying to stir up in the first place.



You are worrying about shit that doesn't matter, you have no idea what you are talking about, and it's none of your business anyway. She is one of thousands sacrificing who-knows-what to be there and support OWS. She is there doing what she believes in. You aren't. She wins.

Lindsey Lohan hit her head on her garage door. Shouldn't you be on TMZ awaiting updates?

I think you've dismissed the tone too readily. And also the content.

The article tells us:
She is "obsessed" and "abandon[ed] [her] family" to "[cozy] up to some like-minded radicals". She is "otherwise 'occupied'" and "plans to stray awhile". She is "keeping herself warm at night with the help of a young waiter". In the morning "the pair... woke up... on their little patch of paving stone... and dashed off... to wash up." Her slogan is to "Make Love Not War".

I'm pretty sure there is some defamation of character in there somewhere.

>> ^marinara:

>> ^notarobot:
Is there any law that allows her to sue (faux/NYpost) for defamation of character for being misrepresented?

Besides the tone ofthe piece, How was she misrepresented?

What you are ignoring, however, is how it is implied she is having an affair with a co-OWS.

I'm not entirely sure of the timeline, but at the time of the F&F broadcast there appeared to be rumors that was the case. So it can be said that F&F didn't do the due diligence to get the truth of it before flapping thier yaps. All they knew was this chick 'left' her family to stay in an OWS tent city with a strange man.

"Subject to outbursts"? Are you ****ting me? She isn't trained in dealing with the media, trained to tamp down a natural response to being attacked like she was

If I wanted to go to some event 'thing' then I would bloody well make sure in advance that my wife, kids, and other close family/friends were aware of what I was up doing. I'd have had a schedule, a map, a budget, a place to stay, money, and supplies. I'd have had a solid 'I'm done' day my spouse was well aware of so she wouldn't worry. And if something came up, I'd ditch the event instantly and go home because that's where parents/spouses belong. To me the most damning thing in this whole story is that Hippie-Chick McProtest is still in NYC. A normal person who isn't an idiot doesn't stay to hang around a bunch of strangers when her family is having a situation.

Because this is how NORMAL people roll. We make sure our spouses are cool before we go anywhere. We don't do stupid things that give the wrong impressions. If someone accuses us of something fishy, the first thing we do is go back to their family to make sure things are OK. It is called common sense. When a NORMAL person gets confronted with a report that they have abandoned thier family they have the truth and facts on thier side to give them everything they need to respond with the trained aplomb of an expert. Something like...

"I deny the false reports and misrepresentations of my behavior. I have not abandoned my family. I planned this event in advance, with my spouse's approval, and I have taken all precautions to care for my family in my temporary absence. Any reports that suggests otherwise are either misinformed or false. I can provide you with the contact information for my spouse, friends, and other individuals who are well aware of my intentions and can verify my statements."

I frankly find it very strange that we have not heard one peep from the husband. Neither have we heard from neighbors, co-workers, or whatever. The only articles I've seen from people that know her say she's a flaky hippie-wannabe. And the "Waiter" sure didn't do her any favors with his stupid response. He might as well have said, "Yeah - she's 'keeping me warm' nights!"

Let's all agree to disagree. I don't think we're about to convince one another anytime soon. Ideas and beliefs that a person has learned and witnessed in their own unique environment and life experiences can give you a very different opinion.

I for one have lived half my life in Korea and the current half in US. I used to think Americans were well mannered, sophisticated people back when I was growing up in Korea. After moving to America, I realized that Americans did in fact were well mannered and culturally sophisticated, but only in terms of western ideologies.


For Americans, Saying 'bless you' is nice, but turning your head away from guest when drinking alcohol is weird. Holding doors for other people is nice, but not giving up your subway seat when a middle aged person is standing is fine. English and German sounds distinctively different, but Korean and Japanese sounds the same. Not tipping your waiter is looked down upon, but not giving your close relatives' children large sums of money after visiting their house is perfectly fine.

Chilaxe may value certain traits over as an individual from another society with very different circumstance of living, and same could be said about longde. You both have lived different environments and different experiences. For some people, certain ethnic groups seem more desirable over the other, while for others, there isn't much difference as to where they're from. (*one society might value personable manners and public order over individual uniqueness and athletic prowess, and vice versa)

You are both absolutely correct from your stand point, and both wrong from each other's point of view at the same time. Accept it, and stop yourselves from becoming one of those people who starts flame wars over the internet with a complete stranger.

Apparently you can't read particularly well.

The original comment I was responding to said basically it can't be that difficult dealing with students, administrators, and idiotic parents.

I said until he actually has to do it, he has no idea wtf he's talking about.

There's no double standard, here. I have no problems with people being critical of the education system. But idiotic comments describing a teacher's job as easy when they have no personal experience whatsoever is out of line. Do the job before you talk as if it's an easy job. Anyone can sit on their butts and say someone else's job is easy without any factual basis.

I'm guessing it must have been difficult for your reading teachers when you went to school...

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^heropsycho:
Excuse me, I never said people can't be critical of the system. I said that someone who sits there and judges how difficult it is to be a teacher without actually teaching is a completely unqualified judge on the matter.
That's the rules - you don't talk out of your butt about things you have no idea about if you actually are looking for truth instead of what you want to be true.

Mmmm, I feel like you're changing your meaning. And maybe contradicting yourself? So you're saying we can be critical but we're not qualified to be critical? What does that mean exactly?
The truth is if you pay for a service you maintain the right to scrutinize that service. Let me give you an example. You got to a restaurant for dinner, but your waiter gives you bad service (doesn't take your order for half an hour, doesn't refill your drinks, brings food out late and cold, etc.).
When you complain he asks if you've ever waited tables. Let's assume you haven't. Does that negate your right to evaluate the waiter's performance? Should you instead just hand over your money graciously and leave because you're unqualified to judge him?

>> ^heropsycho:

Excuse me, I never said people can't be critical of the system. I said that someone who sits there and judges how difficult it is to be a teacher without actually teaching is a completely unqualified judge on the matter.
That's the rules - you don't talk out of your butt about things you have no idea about if you actually are looking for truth instead of what you want to be true.


Mmmm, I feel like you're changing your meaning. And maybe contradicting yourself? So you're saying we can be critical but we're not qualified to be critical? What does that mean exactly?

The truth is if you pay for a service you maintain the right to scrutinize that service. Let me give you an example. You got to a restaurant for dinner, but your waiter gives you bad service (doesn't take your order for half an hour, doesn't refill your drinks, brings food out late and cold, etc.).

When you complain he asks if you've ever waited tables. Let's assume you haven't. Does that negate your right to evaluate the waiter's performance? Should you instead just hand over your money graciously and leave because you're unqualified to judge him?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
To extend your metaphor, the expensive steak restaurant down the street decided to shove their low quality steak down your throat and charge you for the prime filet mignon. Sure, you weren't hungry and didn't even ask for the steak, but now you have to pay for it. And they want to write down what you've eaten.

But that's not what happened. You moved to California. You got a dog. You weren't forced to do either of those things.
Metaphorically, that's walking into the steakhouse, and ordering a steak, and now you're refusing to pay the price on the menu.
Your reasoning? You think the decor they chose for the restaurant is more expensive than you think it should've been, the heating/cooling system was too expensive, their waiters have health care benefits that you think are too generous, and you think rather than buying their meat from a sustainable farm, they should buy their meat from some factory farm, and therefore you feel you shouldn't be "forced" to pay for things you didn't personally choose.
Except, you chose to come into the steakhouse, and ordered a steak from them...


No, to extend your metaphor again, you chose to walk down the street and they shoved a crappy piece of steak in your gullet and forced you to swallow. You also chose to be alive on that day, so they fed you. Then you refused to pay filet mignon prices.

See how stupid that line of reasoning sounds? That's how I feel whenever someone says "You chose to live in this country/state" and "if you don't like it, move!". It's like telling blacks to move out if they don't like the burning cross in front of their house. Essentially this is the statist equivalent of Godwin's Law, but way, way, way worse. And ends the discussion for me.